xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches

To: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:47:32 -0600
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121211211401.GA26247@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <20121203144208.143464631@xxxxxxx> <20121211182000.GB29421@xxxxxxxxx> <20121211203517.GV15784@dastard> <20121211211401.GA26247@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 12/11/12 15:14, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:35:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:20:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 05:42:08PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
Here a collection of bug fixes for 3.0-stable. Many of these patches
were also selected by Dave Chinner as possible 3.0-stable patches:
        http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-08/msg00255.html

I chose only bug fixes and kept the changes to a minimum.

Patch 21/22 are required for the bug fix in patch 23 but they are
important changes in their own right.

So, XFS maintainers, should I queue these up for the next 3.0-stable
release or not?

Hi Greg, it needs review first. Previously backports like this
haven't been sent to -stable until reviews have already been
done....

Ok, I'll drop these from my to-apply queue for now, if you all figure
things out and agree, please resend them for inclusion.

thanks,

greg k-h

Sounds good.

--Mark.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>